R.K. Bag, J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated May 20, 2015 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate (Addition Court), Lalbagh, Murshidabad in connection with Misc. Case No.536 of 2014, by which learned Magistrate refused to return the seized vehicle bearing no.WB-57-B-2386 to the petitioner.
(2.) The truck bearing no. WB-57-B-2386 was seized on July 15, 2014 by the police on the allegation of carrying 20,000 ml. of codeine mixture without any authority of law. The police started Raninagar Police Station Case No. 325 of 2014 dated 15-07-2014 under Sections 379/411/413/414 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 21 (c )/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The police arrested the driver of the seized vehicle and another person in connection with the said criminal case. The police submitted charge sheet on completion of investigation. The present petitioner claiming to be the owner of the seized vehicle filed an application before the court of learned Magistrate praying for return of the seized vehicle as an interim custody pending final decision of the criminal case. Learned Magistrate refused to return the seized vehicle to the petitioner by passing the impugned order, which is under challenge in this revision.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the joint owner of the seized vehicle and as such the seized vehicle may be returned to the petitioner as an interim custody on any condition pending final decision of the case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party/State submits that the seized vehicle cannot be returned to the petitioner on two grounds, first, the petitioner is not the registered owner of the seized vehicle and secondly, there is provision for confiscation of the seized vehicle which is involved in the offence under Section 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It appears from the written complaint treated as First Information Report that the seized vehicle bearing no.WB-57-B-2386 is involved in the offence under Section 379/411/413/414 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 21 (c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The particulars of the seized vehicle furnished by the Registering Authority of the Motor Vehicles Department, Murshidabad on November 5, 2014 indicates that one Netajul Mandal is the registered owner of the seized vehicle which is hypothecated to Magma Financial and Corporation Limited. The proposition of law laid down by the Supreme Court in " Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai v. State of Gujarat" reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 is that the criminal court must exercise the power for returning the seized vehicle on some conditions pending final decision of the criminal case. The proposition of law laid down by the Bombay High Court in " B.S. Rawant v. Shaikh Abdul Karim" reported in 1989 (2) Bom. CR 209 and the proposition of law laid down by our High Court in " Tridip Mitra v. State of West Bengal" reported in 2006 (2) CHN 198 and in " Rabi Ranjan Ojha v. The State of West Bengal" reported in (2011) 2 C Cr LR (Cal) 755 is that the seized vehicle involved in the offence punishable under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 must be returned to the rightful claimant as an interim custody pending final decision of the criminal case on any condition, so that the seized vehicle may be produced before the trial court at the time of final order for disposal of property.;